In general, eyewitnesses have a significant impact on the final result of a charged. Because it is the duty of the eyewitness to come forward with the clear and the unclouded truth about the happenings of a crime. Looking to this the Jurors gave the judgement of the case. Besides this many a time the validity of the eyewitness is challenged by many factors including Time, Age, Alcohol, Gender and etc.

This puts a tremendous impact on the Jurors mindset regarding the judgement of the case. In this paper it displays the various category of people and how they have their perspective regarding the suspects. It also displays the history and origin of the eyewitness testimony and how it evolves in the foreign land. Discusses the various types of eyewitness testimony. Lastly some recommendations are there how the legal system can use the eyewitness especially the vulnerable eyewitness in a better and concise manner so that no innocent person will face any injustice.

Introduction
Eyewitness testimony is crucial in identifying, charging, and convicting criminals, impacting jurors' decisions. However, it's not always reliable and can be influenced by various factors. Police and prosecutors must ensure fair and unbiased collection and presentation. Researchers are developing improved procedures for eyewitness evidence preservation.

Eyewitness testimony is a persuasive tool in criminal trials, but it can be unreliable, biased, suggestible, and affected by cross-racial identification. Factors such as stress, bias, leading questions, and biased procedures can distort witness memories, leading to misidentification of suspects.

Eyewitness misidentifications can lead to wrongful convictions and imprisonment of innocent individuals. These misidentifications may ensue as a loss of liberty, stigma, as well as discrimination, it might have a detrimental influence on the life of an individual and family. They may also face long-term difficulties in finding employment, housing, and other opportunities due to their criminal record. Depressive disorders, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder are examples of emotional trauma., can also occur as a result of being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.

Furthermore, these convictions can erode public trust in the justice system, making it harder to ensure justice for all. To prevent these consequences, it is crucial to improve the reliability of eyewitness identifications and implement reforms that address estimator and system variables. This can include measures such as expert testimony, proper police protocol, and limiting investigators' influence over eyewitnesses. By addressing these issues, the justice system can work towards ensuring justice for all.

Statement Of Problem
Because of concerns about their authenticity, eyewitness testimony in criminal prosecutions is being investigated. Memory distortion, external influences, identification errors, and witness susceptibility to persuasion are all variables that contribute to the difficulty in assessing the validity of eyewitness reports. This is especially important in circumstances where identifying a suspect is vital to the prosecution's case, thereby endangering the fairness of the criminal justice system.

Research Questions:

1. What elements support the veracity and accuracy of eyewitness accounts?
2. What effects do psychological and cognitive elements like external influences and memory distortion have on the veracity of eyewitness accounts?
3. Which biases and mistakes are most frequently connected to eyewitness identification?

Literature Review?:
Research Paper No -1 A critical examination of the credibility and admissibility of testimony on the Indian Evidence Act

Isha Ahlawat; Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research & Review (AJMRR); 2022; 3; 4; 134-141

The author talks about the noteworthiness of the eyewitness. She compares the significance of eyewitness with the time immemorial history by giving the instances of Jesus and other instances like the Nuremberg Trials and Holocaust where it is due to the surviving eyewitness, we are able to acquire the details of that period of time.

Remarks this the author also mentioned about the historical aspects of the eyewitness. She conveys that utilization of the eyewitness in both civil and criminal matters must be done very precisely. Especially in case of Criminal matter because slight negligent on side of the eyewitness while giving evidence may lead to the disastrous outcomes that is the life of the accused gets ruined. She also in her research portrays various case laws where the impact of eyewitness is clearly seen.

Research Paper No-2 Evaluating eyewitness trustworthiness

Bandr Fakiha; International Journal of Business and Social Sciences Academic Research; 2018; 8; 10; 1-11

The author basically gave more emphasis on the role of the eyewitness in determining the conviction/acquittal of the case. She also displays that the presence of various factors affect the eyewitness testimony. She in her research paper laid down the various instances of eyewitness testimony like children, male, female and the aged person about their perspective in determining the validity of evidences.

Research Paper No- 3 Eyewitness in criminal procedure

Sinisa Franjic; Clinical Research in Psychology; 2020; 3; 2; 1-5

The author talks about the biological aspect utilised in the Indian Evidence Act. Most probably in the crime investigation scenes when the DNA analysis is not available more emphasis is given on the eyewitness testimony. In case of murder, robbery, shootings and muggings how eyewitness evidence is crucial. In her paper it also can be clearly visible that despite the importance of eyewitness many scholars are of the against of this due to the misidentification in many cases leading to the convicts of the innocent people's.

The Beginnings, Ancient Situation, Along With Indian Evidence Act Of Eyewitness Testimony:
India is home to the law of evidence's ancient origins. Sakshi, or the "witnesses," were regarded by the Dharma Sastras as an essential resource for determining the truth in matters that are up for debate. The eighth-century BCE philosopher Yajnavalkya wrote a great deal about evidence and proof, both oral (śabdapramāṇa) and documented (lekhya) forms. In contrast to today, there were stringent restrictions on who might testify in a civil case.

Children, dependents, insane people, women, and people in terror frequently had tainted evidence, and those who were not above reproach were needed to qualify for the remainder of the testimony to have any weight. It was generally believed that documentary evidence was more reliable than oral testimony as oral testimony could be influenced much more easily. In reality, an examination of all historical laws indicates a pattern of purposeful witness exclusion intended to control their credibility and exclude anyone whose legitimacy may be legally questioned. In contrast, there were a lot less requirements for being a witness in a criminal prosecution. It was reasoned that crimes may occur in locations like caverns, woodlands, and other areas where it would be impossible to get enough evidence, forcing investigators to rely on the testimony of the witnesses who are present. The Latin proverb went something like this: "Only strumpets can be witnesses to a murder that occurs in a brothel.

"With the arrival of the British, the way criminal proceedings were conducted and evidence was gathered on the Indian subcontinent underwent a radical change." During the early years of British administration, courts located in the Presidency towns used evidence procedures that were adapted from English common law. In some regions, a combination of local customs and traces of Islamic law were in effect. Subsequently, the previously Indian Evidence Act of 1872 was passed & continues to remain in effect today. Witnesses are covered in Sections 118 to 134 of Chapter IX of the Act.

According to Section 118, any competent individual "as long as the Court of Appeal examines that their testimony is hindered through delicate decades, extremely elderly status, ailments, irrespective in their bodies and consideration, etc any other factor of the same kind," they may testify. from understanding the questions posed to them, or from providing sensible responses to those questions. Any eyewitness can, therefore, testify during a trial unless the court specifically forbids them from doing so for the reasons outlined in Section 118.

Since the (eye)witness is under oath, it is typically assumed that they are stating the truth until it can be persuasively demonstrated otherwise. This rule may not be very helpful if someone is claiming seeing a yeti or a UFO, but it becomes crucial that trustworthy and truthful witnesses come forward when major crimes like rape, murder, or arson are committed.

The problem lies in the fact that most witnesses to severe and violent crimes are so traumatised and disturbed by what they saw that they frequently have trouble recalling specific information about the trial. Furthermore, the majority of individuals pay insufficient awareness to their environment in order to accurately remember little details that constitute required proof, for instance a phone call or an image they seen just prior to it vanished from the offender's situation. This is recognised by Indian evidence law jurisprudence.

A Testament Of An Eyewitness
Eyewitness testimony is the narrative provided to courts by an innocent party or bystander of the precise event under investigation. This eyewitness must only state what they saw, observed, experienced, smelt, and felt. Their own views and ideas on the subject are unimportant. According to research, these attitudes and convictions influence how an eyewitness recalls information.

Expert Testimony
The adequacy of a witness's testimony cannot be determined directly by expert testimony on eyewitness reliability. However, expert testimony has the potential to be useful to the trier of fact by providing a social framework and presenting general social- sciences conclusions research in order to aid and in resolving factual concerns in a specific case.

This scientific information may aid in interpreting and evaluating what eyewitnesses report, but the ultimate responsibility of evaluating the credibility of the eyewitnesses remains with the trial judge or jurors. Eyewitness researchers do not rely on single cases, as the conclusions are drawn from empirically-validated aggregate data on various factors used to understand a single instance. Expert testimony related to specific variables that have been determined through scientific research to have a specific effect can be valuable in evaluating specific points that are at issue.

Types Of Eyewitness
Eyewitness testimonies can be classified into two types: recognition and memory of eyewitnesses. In cognitive psychology, firsthand recollection is associated with remembering while identifying eyewitnesses is associated with recognition. Eyewitness recall is crucial for collecting data about the person who commits a crime and the details of the offence itself. This includes the physical description of the suspect such as height, clothing, voice, and other features that may aid in identifying the culprit.

Additionally, eyewitnesses may be questioned about the order of events to help piece together the entire crime episode. To ensure the accuracy of the information, eyewitnesses are questioned multiple times, and the repetition also helps identify any coaching that may have taken place. However, studies have shown that several factors can influence the quality of eyewitness memory.

During Trials, The Convenience Of Eyewitness Testimony?
The credibility of eyewitness evidence in court is questioned and influenced by various factors. Observational conditions, stress, and time delays can impact accuracy. Cognitive and psychological factors, such as memory distortion and suggestion, further affect reliability. Common errors include misidentification, unconscious transference, lineup biases, and confirmation bias. Recognizing these influences is crucial for evaluating the credibility of eyewitness accounts in legal proceedings and implementing measures to enhance their reliability.

Admissibility Of Eyewitness Testimony In Trials?
The admissibility of eyewitness testimony in trials hinges on factors like the reliability of the testimony and adherence to legal standards. Challenges arise from cognitive and psychological influences on eyewitness accounts. The accuracy of identification procedures and potential for biases impact admissibility. Ensuring fair and consistent standards for admitting eyewitness testimony is essential for maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings.

Factors Affecting Eyewitness Testimony
A number of variables can influence eyewitness recall, including weapon concentration, stress, reconstructive memory, erroneous data, alcohol, time, age, and gender. It is critical to comprehend how these factors impact the standard of eyewitness testimony, as mistakes with identifying witnesses account for 70% of erroneous convictions.

Weapon Focus
The presence of an arsenal during the carrying out of a crime can have a significant impact on eyewitness recollection. This is because the weapon becomes a focal point of the witness's attention, leading to a decrease in the accuracy of their description of the suspect. Research has shown that while witnesses accurately describe the weapon used, because their attention is diverted to the weapon, they find themselves less able to adequately characterise the suspect.

A study by Johnson & Scott found that exposure to a bloody knife caused witnesses to describe the suspect with 33% accuracy, compared to 49% accuracy when the suspect was holding a pen. People who are shy or autistic prefer to focus on the suspect instead of the weapon in their possession, making them possibly more trustworthy eyewitnesses. It is important to consider these factors when evaluating eyewitness testimony, as errors in identification can lead to wrongful convictions.

Stress
It is generally known that various stress levels have varying impacts on eyewitnesses' capacity to remember information from an incident site and identify the perpetrator. Moderate stress might assist an individual in remembering more information about an incident they have observed. According to research, as long as stress levels do not cause anxiety in the eyewitness, they will describe the incident and the others there throughout the time more accurately if they are not in a heightened mental state.

Yet, if the eyewitness is subjected to high amounts of stress, their capacity to recall information suffers, and they are unable to correctly recount what happened. For example, if a gun is aimed towards an eyewitness, their recall on the events will be weaker than someone else whom did not possess a weapon aimed at them. Sauerland et al. performed an investigation on the impact of stress levels among two teams in the London Dungeon in 2016. The actor terrified both groups by startling everyone in a dungeon.

The character followed the members of the initial group while brandishing a weapon in his left hand then approaching individuals of unit two. forty-five minutes after the shows aired, participants in both categories were asked to characterise the actor. People of group one was 75% accurate, whereas those from group two were just 17% accurate in characterising the performer. Group two provided fewer precise details since their levels of anxiety were elevated as an outcome of the actor brandishing a club. Participants of this team acknowledged that they were horrified by the actor wielding a club and feared for their life given that the character was being hired to prank the two teams with no previous information of what to anticipate in the dungeon.

Sauerland et al. contend that cortisol levels have an effect on eyewitness perception, and they claim that very excessive amounts of cortisol detrimentally harm witness vision because their fight-or-flight reactions take away their capacity to see or hear happenings. As a result, while establishing the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the judicial system should consider the degree of stress that these witnesses encountered at the time when the crime was committed.

Memory Reconstruction
Reconstructing past memories refers to the human inclination to patch holes in memories by generating assumptions based on cultural prejudices and conventions. For instance, someone who was present could say that they observed a lady fleeing a crime scene even if they did not observe the suspect's face. This might be because the person in question had blond locks or was decked out in feminine attire, causing the eyewitness to form assumptions based on these facts.

However, the accused person may have been away for lengthier lengths of time between the offence and the interrogation procedure. As a result of this, witnesses may forget some information of the incident, and memory reconstruction is utilised to fill in the blanks.

Misleading Information
Behavioural studies have revealed that the human brain may generate erroneous recollections. Experiments conducted in the 1990s proved that individuals undergoing psychotherapy may be induced to remember fictitious experiences, such as participation in demonic black masses. In some instances, ladies claimed to be pregnant while they were not. This demonstrates that false memories may be imprinted in the brain by employing deceptive information. Interrogators can modify the replies that witnesses provide by using language.

A group of onlookers, for example, were tasked to figure out the velocity of two automobiles that had crashed head-on. Participants draw conclusions about those terms which an investigator uses, as demonstrated by the initial group's lower appraisal of value than the second. Police should question witnesses using proper language to prevent deceiving them and influencing their recollections of the incident, according to McPhee, Paterson, and Kemp (2014). How to employ language to aid eyewitnesses in recalling specifics about the perpetrator and the site of the crime requires more investigation.

Someone might have witnessed glimpses of the real criminal or criminals even if their focus was diverted to the weapon, and the interrogator will only find these facts if they ask the correct questions. The necessity for study on phrases that may be correctly utilised to explore eyewitness reports is highlighted by the fact that existing research mainly focuses on the impact of incorrect information.

Alcohol
The effect of drinking on the veracity of eyewitness evidence is currently being debated. Some academics contend that alcohol hinders eyewitnesses' capacity to remember events, while others contend that there aren't only minor changes in the evidence presented by sober and drunk eyewitnesses. Soraci et al. contend that drunk persons have impaired coordination, making it difficult for them to correctly perceive and explain occurrences.

Conversely, Hagsand et al. believe that the quality of intoxicated eyewitness testimony can be validated by checking for consistency after having the witness narrate their experiences multiple times. As there is no consensus between these two viewpoints, it is important to corroborate evidence from intoxicated witnesses with accounts from other individuals present at the scene who were not under the influence of alcohol.

Time
Time is another factor that influences the trustworthiness of testimony from witnesses since the witness's ability to recall activities and persons at a crime scene declines with time. As a consequence, some of the details that witnesses might have recalled about the assassination fade over time. This trend is continuing. Usually, fading curves is utilised to outline. As an outcome, witnesses should be interviewed as soon as feasible. They should understand everything they may know the offence in order to offer accurate descriptions. The influence length of exposure upon those calibre of witness statements is that victims who have been subjected to criminal processes and suspects comprehend the offence better than witnesses who have been exposed to the same stimuli for a shorter period of time

Age
The reliability of eyewitness's testimony is also influenced by age, as witnesses who are younger or older tend to be less able to describe the suspect's facial features than those who are younger or middle-aged. Due to the fact that most of their encounters are with others who are roughly the same age, people have a tendency to be skilled at identifying the faces of their peers. Since the majority of the suspects are young or middle-aged people, those who are similar to them in age will be better able to identify them, making youngsters and the elderly less reliable suspect identification candidates.

Gender
When it comes to recounting what happened at a crime scene, men and women are not as good at it. Research suggests that males are more likely to recall what happened there but to overlook the suspect's facial traits. However, women can recall suspects' faces more vividly than males do. Interrogators should thus depend on female details for recognising suspects and male details to put together what transpired at the crime scene. Both sexes are more adept at spotting suspects who are similar to them, according to research. As a result, whereas male witnesses are more adept at identifying male suspects, female witnesses are more adept at identifying female ones.

Case Laws:

1. Madhu Madhuranatha V. State of Karnataka[1] The decision in this case defines a witness as someone who is qualified to testify in court, offer information in an oral or written deposition, or do both. Until witnesses fall prey to fraud, extortion, or other unethical behaviour, they are typically seen as objective parties.
    
2. Vikas Kumar Roorkewal v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors[2] The Court of Appeals conducted research to how witnesses are used in the penal justice system. The court ruled that the function of witnesses in the federal justice system is crucial. Enforcing rules protecting witnesses can help to a fair trial, as the Supreme Court found in the same instance.
    
3. Gangadhar Behera and others vs State of Orissa[3] In this case certain criterion has been laid down to determine the credibility of a witness, which is as follows:
   • Are witnesses able to obtain trustworthy information?
   • When testifying, do they agree with each other?
   • What reason, if any, do witnesses have to conceal the truth?
      
4. Bishan Das vs Crown[4] It was determined that the mere fact that testimony submitted by a spouse opposing her husband was admissible in the courtroom during the course of session without objection, although it was obtained by or on favour of the husband, did not remove the obstacle established by section 122 of the IEA. Related does not imply interested. A witness's mere connection would not be grounds for dismissal. A family member who is a genuine witness to the case's circumstances cannot be considered an interested witness.
    
5. Raja Gounder vs State of Tamil Nadu[5] The court, in a murder case where Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was applied along with Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, held that even though there were no impartial witnesses, the conviction based on the testimony of a relative was upheld. The case involved a conflict between two brothers over a piece of land, and the dispute was within the family. Since no unbiased witnesses were present, the conviction relied on the account of the wife of the deceased. Her testimony was considered trustworthy because she was unlikely to falsely implicate the accused, who were her brothers-in-law.
    
6. Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh vs State of Gujarat[6] In this instance, it was determined that the definition of the phrase "interested" implies that the witness has a direct interest in seeing the accused guilty for whatever reason. It is well established that the proof of interested witnesses is very untrustworthy, and some cannot be believed without verification.
    
7. State of Haryana vs Shakuntala[7] The Supreme Court endeavours to establish the reliability of a witness with a vested interest, defining such a witness as an individual connected to the convicted accused either directly or indirectly due to bias or other hidden motives. It is widely acknowledged that testimony from a witness with a personal stake is deemed unreliable and necessitates thorough verification before being deemed credible.
    
8. Mano Dutt and Anr vs State of U.P.[8] It is well known that the confession of a curious witness cannot be dismissed on the grounds that it is political evidence. However, courts must exercise caution when scrutinising evidence that requires verification to a significant level. In this case, the admission of evidence is reliant on two factors: first, the court's inspection and, second, care while assessing such evidences.

Conclusion
It is the duty of a witness in criminal proceedings to give a factual account of what happened rather than to voice personal thoughts or convictions. If the witness has pertinent information that will help the court proceedings, their main goal in testifying is to address inquiries about the specifics of what happened, when it happened, and who was involved. Two sorts of witnesses can be distinguished: direct witnesses, who saw the incident under discussion, and indirect witnesses, who heard about it through conversations with other people.

Recommendations
To increase the precision of witnesses' observations and memory recall, strengthen witness education and training programs. This may entail teaching witnesses about elements like stress and surroundings that might influence their view.

As soon as feasible following the incident, ensure that eyewitnesses offer a detailed account of what happened. The credibility of the testimony can be retained by promptly capturing the specifics.

Think about how biases such as cross-racial identification and others might affect eyewitness evidence. Urge jurors and judges to consider these biases when assessing the reliability of identification evidence.

References:

• https://asclepiusopen.com
• https://link.springer.com
• https://hrmars.com
• https://journals.sagepub.com
• https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu
• https://thelawbrigade.com
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57069428/
• https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/TESTIMONY-OF-INTERESTED-WITNESS.pdf
• https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4760-credibility-of-interested-and-related-witness.html
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/eyewitness-wrongfu-convictions/

End Notes:

• Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2013
• Transfer Petition (CRIMINAL) No. 29 of 2008
• 2001 CriLJ 2643, 2001 I OLR 277
• 27 PR. 1913(Cr); 1914 Cr. LJ 316
• Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2005
• Criminal Appeal No. 831 OF 2010
• Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 2008
• (2012) 4 SCC 79